Night Strike wrote:Let's assume that all of that is true. How is it the government's job to become involved? What authority does the government have to tell a business where it is allowed to have its shop? If a company wants to move operations overseas, especially away from an environment where the current president wants to do everything in his power to make taxes and regulations skyrocket, why don't they have the freedom to do that? Should businesses also be forbidden to close down because people will lose jobs?
1) Pre-NAFTA we had laws that prevented businesses from shipping Jobs overseas. Republicans AND Democrats axed it, and they thought they were doing the right thing.
2) Republicans have blocked several measures to bring jobs to America, including the American Jobs Act, and the Bring Jobs Back to America Act, both of which were fully funded and would not have added to the national debt. Both could have saved Sensata-Freeport and Honeywell.
I would also add the fully-funded Veterans Jobs Bill, which Republicans also blocked. But that one wouldn't have helped Sensata-Freeport.
3) This isn't a government issue; this is a issue that voters have with Mitt Romney. When he profits from an immoral business deal, then it's ok because American's are all about profit. The consequences of his dealings are ignored. So when these fired workers need unemployment benefits or welfare because Bain prefers the Chinese system, then they are freeloading moochers who are adding to our national debt.
Mitt Romney could step in anytime and save these jobs. He could. But he wont. Instead he'll just take the money. Like Jesus would do.
In other words,
1) "International trade is bad for the US." (NAFTA actually is not free trade. There's plenty of regulations within it which benefit American corporations a la crony capitalism, so NAFTA in many cases does benefit particular
US companies. That's an important point to realize about what JB is criticizing yet overlooking here).
2) "Acts A and B would've saved corporations X and Y, and (presumably) would have created a disincentive for US companies to outsource beyond nationalist boundaries." (How strong is that disincentive--especially when compared to (1) increased taxes, (2) the expectation of increased taxes, (3) arbitrary US punishments against corporations (Lehman Brothers, US purchasers of Chinese solar panels, etc.), (3) more regulation which is becoming more vague, (4) the "fiscal cliff," (5) political uncertainty and incompetence, etc.?)
3) "I don't like what Bain did; they should've stayed in the US." (JB needs to focus on the benefits of voluntary trade, and how this offers opportunities to non-Americans. Of course, being nationalist he will reject that notion--much to the detriment of significantly poorer people outside of the US.)
(And if an increase in applicants of welfare/job insurance is viewed as negative, then JB's own criticism becomes involved in government, thus it becomes a government issue, which he denies. This is odd--and contradictory. And again, if he's mentioning consequences, then it would be wise for him to examine the consequences and incentives producers and consumers face in regard to issues such as 1-5 from #2.)